Apple, Google, and Microsoft Among Companies Signing New White House Climate Pledge

[itguy06]

If that were the case, and it were that easy for people and animals to effect such profound changes in the atmosphere just by breathing, wouldn't we be seeing an overall decrease in oxygen as the population expands, and plant life scales back?

We are...
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm

While no danger exists that our O2 reserve will be depleted, nevertheless the O2 content of our atmosphere is slowly declining--so slowly that a sufficiently accurate technique to measure this change wasn't developed until the late 1980s. Ralph Keeling, its developer, showed that between 1989 and 1994 the O2 content of the atmosphere decreased at an average annual rate of 2 parts per million. Considering that the atmosphere contains 210,000 parts per million, one can see why this measurement proved so difficult.

This drop was not unexpected, for the combustion of fossil fuels destroys O2. For each 100 atoms of fossil-fuel carbon burned, about 140 molecules of O2 are consumed. The surprise came when Keeling's measurements showed that the rate of decline of O2 was only about two-thirds of that attributable to fossil-fuel combustion during this period. Only one explanation can be given for this observation: Losses of biomass through deforestation must have been outweighed by a fattening of biomass elsewhere, termed global "greening" by geochemists

You can also read on further in that article about how the Biosphere 2 experiment ran out of O2 and had to have it trucked in.

So yeah we are most likely a HUGE part of the problem. Adding tons of anything to a finite resource (Earth in this case) will cause something to give. You can't just keep adding and adding and ignore those effects.

 

[Renzatic]

So yeah we are most likely a HUGE part of the problem. Adding tons of anything to a finite resource (Earth in this case) will cause something to give. You can't just keep adding and adding and ignore those effects.

Did you read the article? The effects of deforestation on our oxygen supply has been infinitesimally small.

But let's break your argument down.

6,000,000,000 people currently on earth, a roughly 6x increase since 1800. People inhale O2, exhale CO2

Less plant life per square acre on earth due to human expansion. Plants absorb CO2, emit O2 as a waste product.

So with an increase in human life, and a decrease in fauna FLORA, DAMNIT across the globe, we have...

Nearly double the CO2 content in the atmosphere in 100 years.

...but a nearly unmeasurable decrease in oxygen content, per your article.

So if a population explosion is the major reason why we're seeing more CO2, why aren't we seeing an equal decrease in oxygen?

 

[nt5672]

That's easy to disprove. The average amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been steady and relatively constant for the last few thousand years at least. During that time, the Earth has probably played hosts to hundreds, maybe thousands of volcano eruptions.

Now remember. Mark this. All this time, the average CO2 content of the atmosphere has remained steady.

Then, we suddenly see a sudden, incredibly sharp upswing of CO2 in the 20th century.

Have there been more volcano eruptions than usual in the 20th century to explain this change?

Your confusing, along with a lot of other people, causality with coincidence. You think there is a cause and effect, but there is no science that shows cause and effect. If there were cause and effect, we could predict the future and we can't when it comes to weather. We can't predict the hurricane season, when we try, epic fail. We can't predict when droughts will start or end. We cannot predict tornados, rain fall amounts, cloud cover, volcanos, etc. In short we do not have the knowledge to make these types the simple statements and inferences.

Then within the margin of error, the measurements you state about the amount of CO2 being constant is just wrong. I don't mind you not believing me, but go look at the original data and original research. Anyone with a good high school education can understand error propagation. All it requires adding, subtracting, dividing, and multiplying the error percentages. Then create a new graph that shows what the maximum and minimum CO2 amounts could have really been considering the accepted error of measurement in the original data. When you do this, the graph and the data you refer to becomes meaningless, in terms of no real trend.

Again, I'll say, should we continue to study Climate Change, absolutely. Should be make policy and life altering decisions based on what we know, absolutely not. We are not that smart today. And for sure, it is not smart to give politicians more power over us out of fear and no proof that the earth will end in a couple of decades.

 

[Renzatic]

Your confusing, along with a lot of other people, causality with coincidence. You think there is a cause and effect, but there is no science that shows cause and effect. If there were cause and effect, we could predict the future and we can't when it comes to weather. We can't predict the hurricane season, when we try, epic fail. We can't predict when droughts will start or end. We cannot predict tornados, rain fall amounts, cloud cover, volcanos, etc. In short we do not have the knowledge to make these types the simple statements and inferences.

No, but we can extrapolate based on trends. We can't predict the exact moment a tornado will form, but we know the conditions that allow for them.

But then again, climate science and meteorology aren't exactly analogous fields. One is the study of a relatively static subject, the other the thousands of causes and effects that can happen within it. We can look at trends, measure the contents of the atmosphere, see increases over time, try to discover the source of these increases, and make rough predictions based on other elements. No one's saying it's a science that guarantees a 100% likely outcome. The predictions change based on unforeseen future events and previously unaccounted for data. But to say it's entirely moot because we can't predict the rain is a fallacy.

Then within the margin of error, the measurements you state about the amount of CO2 being constant is just wrong. I don't mind you not believing me, but go look at the original data and original research. Anyone with a good high school education can understand error propagation. All it requires adding, subtracting, dividing, and multiplying the error percentages. Then create a new graph that shows what the maximum and minimum CO2 amounts could have really been considering the accepted error of measurement in the original data. When you do this the graph and the data you refer to becomes meaningless, in terms of no real trend.

I hate doing what will sound like an appeal to authority argument, but...well, if the data we're all relying as proof of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere is so easy to dismiss that even a grade schooler with a handy command of basic math could disprove it, NASA and the ICPP probably wouldn't have published their findings in the first place.

 

[Even Longer]

Regardless of what you think of climate change, those numbers seem really impressive (as is the $140 billion being spent on this).

Yes, indeed. The fact is: climate is inevitable changing, regardless, what people think of it.

 

[thekev]

Your confusing, along with a lot of other people, causality with coincidence. You think there is a cause and effect, but there is no science that shows cause and effect. If there were cause and effect, we could predict the future and we can't when it comes to weather. We can't predict the hurricane season, when we try, epic fail. We can't predict when droughts will start or end. We cannot predict tornados, rain fall amounts, cloud cover, volcanos, etc. In short we do not have the knowledge to make these types the simple statements and inferences.

Then within the margin of error, the measurements you state about the amount of CO2 being constant is just wrong. I don't mind you not believing me, but go look at the original data and original research. Anyone with a good high school education can understand error propagation. All it requires adding, subtracting, dividing, and multiplying the error percentages. Then create a new graph that shows what the maximum and minimum CO2 amounts could have really been considering the accepted error of measurement in the original data. When you do this, the graph and the data you refer to becomes meaningless, in terms of no real trend.

Again, I'll say, should we continue to study Climate Change, absolutely. Should be make policy and life altering decisions based on what we know, absolutely not. We are not that smart today. And for sure, it is not smart to give politicians more power over us out of fear and no proof that the earth will end in a couple of decades.

I don't know if you're being intentionally dishonest here or you are just ignorant, but that is completely false. First off forward error analysis is not always reliable or meaningful. Secondly it doesn't even work that way. What you're thinking of here is that if you're dealing with floating point values (quotient values of a finite word length) you can represent the number stored in the form (approximating typical notation here, macrumors doesn't have a LaTeX editor).

fl(x) = (1+∆)x so if you're doing repeated computation
fl(x*y) = (1+∆_1)x * (1+∆_2)y (fixed mistake in subscript)

You can expand values relative to their difference from a given machine number. It is what you described, and it's known as forward error analysis. It is not a very accurate way of computing meaningful errors, and that in itself accounts for computational errors, not pitfalls related to overfitting. I get it. You saw it in high school and assume you know everything about the topic. You are trying to educate others when you either don't understand the topic or are unwilling to formulate a reasonable explanation.

 

[Renzatic]

fl(x) = (1+∆)x so if you're doing repeated computation
fl(x*y) = (1+∆_1)x * (1+∆_1)y

I wish I knew higher maths.

...actually, no I don't. I hate math. But it sure would've been a handy tool to illustrate my point here.

 

[thekev]

I wish I knew higher maths.

...actually, no I don't. I hate math. But it sure would've been a handy tool to illustrate my point here.

Well you would have to understand it better than me, which would probably require day to day familiarity. He clearly assumed that high school level statistics was all that was required to comment in a meaningful way. The suggestion that high school level courses teach you how to interpret large data sets or perform meaningful error analysis is asinine. I think he knew that and said it anyway, thus the snippy response from me.

By the way fl(x) just meant the floating point number stored for x. Floating point numbers can be thought of as a finite subset of quotient values with respect to a given base.

Also regarding the issue of emissions, we can observe the impact of pollution in a more personal way. For example smog in Beijing or any images of 1970s Los Angeles. It's a little frustrating to me that everyone just takes sides, focusing on one specific point.

 

[ElectronGuru]

Here's a metaphor explaining weather vs climate

 

[AlecZ]

Does General Motors have to worry about what their cars emit?
Seriously though, this is impressive.

 

[zioxide]

Uhh... Tesla? The company that is single-handedly doing more to fix passenger car pollution than any other company out there? Were they not invited or something??!?

Tesla? Nah. Tesla is useless. If you live east of the Mississippi, driving an electric car causes more pollution than driving a gasoline car due to the methods used to produce the electricity you use to charge your car.

I knew this would quickly devolve into a right wing bitch fest full of people who don't know enough about any given topic pretending like their uneducated opinion on climate change is equivalent to scientific fact. Good times.

Typical of just about everything in our society now. Gotta love the part of the population that ignores reality and science in favor of their mythical beliefs.

But...but...the liberal agenda!!

Reality is a liberal agenda

Nope climate change is about money, pure and simple. 50 years ago people walked out of their 90 degree apartment with open windows and no air conditioning into a 95 degree summer day and it did not seem so bad, now they walk out of their 72 degree apartment fully air conditioned into a 96 degree summer day and the world is coming to an end. Somehow the world average temperature is up a couple of degrees and it represents the end, the temperature in your home can be off a couple of degrees and you never notice it. It seems to me that some common sense is sorely missing.

You should take a trip to the Maldives or the North Slope of Alaska and then try to deny that humans are accelerating climate change.

Good article on how climate change is affecting northern alaska:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/11/the-big-unchill/JNbnstRLER1EGErgBEO7MO/story.html

 

[BaldiMac]

Even if those arguing against the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus are completely correct in every way including vast global conspiracies to take our money, I still think that federal investment in renewable energy to end our reliance on fossil fuels as soon as possible is in our best interest socially, politically, economically and environmentally.

 

[nt5672]

I don't know if you're being intentionally dishonest here or you are just ignorant, but that is completely false. First off forward error analysis is not always reliable or meaningful. Secondly it doesn't even work that way. What you're thinking of here is that if you're dealing with floating point values (quotient values of a finite word length) you can represent the number stored in the form (approximating typical notation here, macrumors doesn't have a LaTeX editor).

fl(x) = (1+∆)x so if you're doing repeated computation
fl(x*y) = (1+∆_1)x * (1+∆_2)y (fixed mistake in subscript)

You can expand values relative to their difference from a given machine number. It is what you described, and it's known as forward error analysis. It is not a very accurate way of computing meaningful errors, and that in itself accounts for computational errors, not pitfalls related to overfitting. I get it. You saw it in high school and assume you know everything about the topic. You are trying to educate others when you either don't understand the topic or are unwilling to formulate a reasonable explanation.

Technically what I was talking about was propagation of uncertainty (or propagation of error) which, in this case, concern uncertainties due to measurement limitations and/or observation error and nothing to do with their stored form. And it is also very true that some college courses minimize this part of the analysis because it makes the math harder and a lot more tedious. But it is conceptually easy to understand. If the sum the uncertainties for a specific CO2 reading is high it is not meaningful to calculate the mean of several measurements as a valid representation of measurement at a specific time, without an analysis and proof or at least solid reasoning that the propagation of uncertainty is not biased (or said another way, is normally distributed around the mean). Us simpletons know this theory by the name Garbage In - Garbage Out.

Now there are several studies about CO2 levels prior to the 21st Century. Guess what, they don't agree. To us simpletons, (using made up numbers, because I did this analysis several years ago and am not going to spend the time now to do it again) if one study says the CO2 level in 1800 was 100, the authors study says it was 30, and yet another says it was 200, why would the author pick 30 as the basis of the analysis? Because using the other numbers will not give the result that is being paid for. But the author does not want to be shown as an idiot, so they just leave out the error analysis, leave out any explanation of the differences with other studies, throw in some assumptions, throw in some differences in methods that make the numbers not comparable to the other studies, and since the answer is what everyone wants, everyone is happy.

Except of course a few PhD's that really care about the truth, and have estimated that large numbers of research papers don't prove their conclusions. It is currently estimated, by some folks at Harvard and other universities, that 50%+ of the non-physics research coming out of universities is non-repeatable, because the assumptions, methods, or analysis (statistics) are flawed.

Like I said before, if you really want the truth, go to the original research that led to the hockey stick CO2 graph and read it. If you force yourself to challenge the paper using only high school math and common sense it will be clear that an agenda was present in the preparation of the paper. Don't be confused by the fancy terms, like forward error analysis, and the integrals and derivatives, most research papers can be completely undone by challenging the basic assumptions or how the conclusions were reached.

 

[nt5672]

Even if those arguing against the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus are completely correct in every way including vast global conspiracies to take our money, I still think that federal investment in renewable energy to end our reliance on fossil fuels as soon as possible is in our best interest socially, politically, economically and environmentally.

if you had said "some" federal investment I would agree completely. But federal investment is completely different than enforcing lifestyle changes. The government and others also want to change our lifestyle and/or seize the power to control using the mantra of "saving the future", "saving the environment", or "saving our children". I do object to that when the facts don't support the claim. The facts are still important unless you are a government bureaucrat, in which case, the are only important if a lot of people pay attention. We need to pay attention.

 

[nt5672]

. . . .
You should take a trip to the Maldives or the North Slope of Alaska and then try to deny that humans are accelerating climate change. . . . .

Glaciers started receding thousands of years ago. I believe that there were glaciers in Hawaii as late as 13,000 years ago. But those glaciers are long since gone. The glaciers in Iowa and Missouri started receding IIRC about 20,000 years. About 18,000 years ago, the Laurentide Ice Sheet began to melt and retreat in Minnesota.

Surely, you don't attribute that massive shift in the climate to humans? Going from all ice to warming enough to provide excellent agricultural fields and streams is a huge change. I think most people have no idea what the earth is really capable of.

In spite of the all-knowing and biased media, there is really no proof yet, that the changes we see today are nothing more than a continuation of the evolution of the earth that started 40 or 50 thousand years ago. Even so, we also know that at some point our core is going to burn out, our sun is going to burn out, and we will plunge into a world of near zero degree Kelvin (-273 C). Oh my god, the sky is falling the sky is falling. Climate change is a natural evolution of the earth.

If you want to worry about something, worry about population growth. There are real valid theories and facts regarding population growth. But the government won't go there right now, why because no one will accept being told they can't have sex or babies. Instead we have ObamaCare which will eventually be the instrument of population control.

 

[BaldiMac]

if you had said "some" federal investment I would agree completely.

"Some" as opposed to what?

But federal investment is completely different than enforcing lifestyle changes. The government and others also want to change our lifestyle and/or seize the power to control using the mantra of "saving the future", "saving the environment", or "saving our children". I do object to that when the facts don't support the claim. The facts are still important unless you are a government bureaucrat, in which case, the are only important if a lot of people pay attention. We need to pay attention.

When the facts aren't on your side, just make vague, unproveable claims!

What "lifestyle changes" are being forced on you in the name of climate change?

Glaciers started receding thousands of years ago. I believe that there were glaciers in Hawaii as late as 13,000 years ago. But those glaciers are long since gone. The glaciers in Iowa and Missouri started receding IIRC about 20,000 years. About 18,000 years ago, the Laurentide Ice Sheet began to melt and retreat in Minnesota.

Surely, you don't attribute that massive shift in the climate to humans? Going from all ice to warming enough to provide excellent agricultural fields and streams is a huge change. I think most people have no idea what the earth is really capable of.

In spite of the all-knowing and biased media, there is really no proof yet, that the changes we see today are nothing more than a continuation of the evolution of the earth that started 40 or 50 thousand years ago. Even so, we also know that at some point our core is going to burn out, our sun is going to burn out, and we will plunge into a world of near zero degree Kelvin (-273 C). Oh my god, the sky is falling the sky is falling. Climate change is a natural evolution of the earth.

Again, there is overwhelming evidence that humans are having a significant impact on the climate through fossil fuel emissions.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The climate absolutely changes naturally over thousands of years. However, that fact doesn't preclude anthropogenic climate change.

 

[ElectronGuru]

Glaciers started receding thousands of years ago...

Yeah, the movie was already over so all that running from the guy with the gun was just a coincidence.

If science is this bad, how in blazes did it rate the first letter in STEM?

 

[Renzatic]

What "lifestyle changes" are being forced on you in the name of climate change?

The other day, a bunch of jackbook gestapo thugs EPA NWO Government Officials drove up to my house in their black Escalades, and told me that I have to put out the tire fire I've had burning in my back yard! INTOLERABLE! I told them if they're so concerned about the welfare of their citizens, then why are they putting fluoride in our drinking water? THIS IS AMERICA, DAMNIT! NOT COMMUNIST CHINA!

What's next Emperor Obama? Forcing us to put solar panels on our house under threat of force? I WILL NOT BE COERCED INTO COVERING MY STYLISH SPANISH TILE! DON'T TREAD ON ME!

 

[BaldiMac]

The other day, a bunch of jackbook gestapo thugs EPA NWO Government Officials drove up to my house in their black Escalades, and told me that I have to put out the tire fire I've had burning in my back yard! INTOLERABLE! I told them if they're so concerned about the welfare of their citizens, then why are they putting fluoride in our drinking water? THIS IS AMERICA, DAMNIT! NOT COMMUNIST CHINA!

What's next Emperor Obama? Forcing us to put solar panels on our house under threat of force? I WILL NOT BE COERCED INTO COVERING MY STYLISH SPANISH TILE! DON'T TREAD ON ME!

I'm pretty sure that Obama is going to be too busy using Obamacare for the purpose of population control to worry about solar panels. After all population growth is what the government should be really worrying about instead of climate change. We can't worry about more than one thing at a time! But the government won't even do anything about population growth because no one will accept being told they can't have sex or babies. Instead we have ObamaCare which will eventually be the instrument of population control. I mean... But not by the government cause we won't accept that. By Obama... Errr... GET OFF MY LAWN!

 

[Renzatic]

Environmental Concern is Thought Control
Children of Woman Babies In Despair Of Lacking Oneness
From Lies Of Government That Seek Thought Control
Through Solar Energy That Attacks Gonads and Ovaries
Preventing Oneness And Harming Future Of Humanity
It Attacks The Children

THIS IS A TRUTHFACT

Barack Obama Is Enemy Of Oneness
Seeks Health Despair Through Guise of Health Care
Global Warming Conglomerate Wishes To Take Thoughts
Through Resonance Frequency Of Wind Turbines (Ghz Rate 3)
Birds That Carry Free Thoughts Sacrificed To False Earthmother Lie
Only Mother Is Truth And Fruit of Womb Humanbabies

OPEN YOUR EYES
​

...man. Crazy Word Salad looks easy, but it actually takes some effort to pull off right.

 

[Aidyn's X]

Except that you have been fed a bunch of lies that the wealthiest pay the least amount of taxes....

According to Pew research (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/)

So the wealthiest pay the most.

But keep repeating the BS you've been fed rather than educate yourself. Playing the victim is not cool.

I think he means percentage of income. Obviously someone making $5 billion in a year pays more taxes in dollar amount than someone making $50,000 but the person making $50,000 has a bigger percentage of their income go towards taxes. Why doesn't everyone just pay the same percentage?

$1000 is nothing to a billionaire but a lot to someone making $50,000. You can spin statistics anyway you want.

 

[nt5672]

Again, there is overwhelming evidence that humans are having a significant impact on the climate through fossil fuel emissions.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The climate absolutely changes naturally over thousands of years. However, that fact doesn't preclude anthropogenic climate change.

Nor does it prove it. A couple of things are going on here. Let me make it simple.

1. Please look up and read "How to Lie with Statistics", by Darrell Huff, published in 1954 and used extensively in college courses until lying became required to get funding sometime in the 70's. The text is available on the internet.

2. Did you actually read the reference paper "Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record." Guess what, the graph shown on the NASA web site does not appear in the paper. Nope, no place, nada. This is called in "How to Lie with Statistics", the semi-attached figure. If you can't prove what you want to prove, then pretend they are the same thing. The graph that is shown on the NASA web page is called the hockey stick graph by Mann and was throughly trashed by the Edward Wegman report commissioned by Congress and delivered in 2006. Again search the internet and you can find a copy. Anyone that reads both reports (the original Mann report and the Wegman report) will come to understand that Mann was simply lying.

Here is the intro to the 2006 Congressional Report (Wegman).

The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations have been interested in an independent verification of the critiques of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) [MBH98, MBH99] by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a, 2005b) [MM03, MM05a, MM05b] as well as the related implications in the assessment. The conclusions from MBH98, MBH99 were featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report entitled Climate Change 20013: The Scientific Basis. This report concerns the rise in global temperatures, specifically during the 1990s. The MBH98 and MBH99 papers are focused on paleoclimate temperature reconstruction and conclusions therein focus on what appear to be a rapid rise in global temperature during the 1990s when compared with temperatures of the previous millennium. These conclusions generated a highly polarized debate over the policy implications of MBH98, MBH99 for the nature of global climate change, and whether or not anthropogenic actions are the source. This committee, composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University), has reviewed the work of both articles, as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report.
​

The conclusion is not very good for Mann and the others. But you probably won't believe me, so go read it for yourself.

3. Now the Vostok ice core data report does include the statement, "The extension of the greenhouse-gas record shows that present- day levels of CO2 and CH4 (360 p.p.m.v. and 1,700 p.p.b.v., respectively) are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." But guess what, the Vostok ice core data report has no information regarding the fact that the current method of measuring CO2 (360 p.p.m.v.) using modern equipment and methods that are accurate is comparable to the derived methods in the report which peak between 280 and 300. The report simply makes an observation with no supporting evidence and no proof. If you read the Vostok report it contains things like "This approach underestimates ΔTs by a factor of 2 in Greenland and, possibly, by up to 50% in Antarctica. " Ts being temperature. The graphs are mentioned as potentially being off by 15,000 years. etc. etc. There are so many assumptions that it is clear to anyone with a science background that the report is probably good it its relative measures of CO2, but there is no evidence that bias has been removed from the observations (chapter 1 of "How to Lie with Statistics").

If in fact you look at figure 3 in the Vostok report, top line in the graph you will see that the most recent ice core CO2 level is below or about equal to all four previous peaks going back 400,000+ years. The Vostok report simply does not attempt to correlate the differences in CO2 readings (current using one method of measurement to past using a completely different measurement method). Why? Because there is no reference to what the real CO2 levels were several hundred thousand years ago, nor is there any scientific theory that explains how to make this comparison.

4. Now why would NASA continue to propagate bad science? It could be any of the following:

• the person that did the web site was probably not a scientist, probably did not have a good high school education, does not understand statistics, or did not understand point 3 above.
• NASA funding comes from the Administration. The Administration's political agenda includes duping the American people about Climate Change and the Administration is not going to fully fund an Agency that is not on the political band wagon.
• If people are focused on the fake problems of Climate Change then they are not focused on the loss of liberty, raises in taxes, losses of jobs, losses of privacy, deterioration of the middle class, increases in health care costs, etc. that have been forced on us by our recent political leaders (Democrat and Republican).
• Or it could be the same greed that effects universities, the need for justifying funding that is so important that it does not deserve a critical evaluation, given that people are so easy to dupe.

 

[BaldiMac]

Nor does it prove it. A couple of things are going on here. Let me make it simple.

Than why did you try and use it as proof? You'll notice that I didn't use it as proof of anything.

1. Please look up and read "How to Lie with Statistics", by Darrell Huff, published in 1954 and used extensively in college courses until lying became required to get funding sometime in the 70's. The text is available on the internet.

It certainly appears that you have read it.

2. Did you actually read the reference paper "Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record." Guess what, the graph shown on the NASA web site does not appear in the paper. Nope, no place, nada. This is called in "How to Lie with Statistics", the semi-attached figure. If you can't prove what you want to prove, then pretend they are the same thing. The graph that is shown on the NASA web page is called the hockey stick graph by Mann and was throughly trashed by the Edward Wegman report commissioned by Congress and delivered in 2006. Again search the internet and you can find a copy. Anyone that reads both reports (the original Mann report and the Wegman report) will come to understand that Mann was simply lying.

Here is the intro to the 2006 Congressional Report (Wegman).

The Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations have been interested in an independent verification of the critiques of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) [MBH98, MBH99] by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a, 2005b) [MM03, MM05a, MM05b] as well as the related implications in the assessment. The conclusions from MBH98, MBH99 were featured in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report entitled Climate Change 20013: The Scientific Basis. This report concerns the rise in global temperatures, specifically during the 1990s. The MBH98 and MBH99 papers are focused on paleoclimate temperature reconstruction and conclusions therein focus on what appear to be a rapid rise in global temperature during the 1990s when compared with temperatures of the previous millennium. These conclusions generated a highly polarized debate over the policy implications of MBH98, MBH99 for the nature of global climate change, and whether or not anthropogenic actions are the source. This committee, composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University), has reviewed the work of both articles, as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations. This Ad Hoc Committee has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report.
​

The conclusion is not very good for Mann and the others. But you probably won't believe me, so go read it for yourself.

3. Now the Vostok ice core data report does include the statement, "The extension of the greenhouse-gas record shows that present- day levels of CO2 and CH4 (360 p.p.m.v. and 1,700 p.p.b.v., respectively) are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr." But guess what, the Vostok ice core data report has no information regarding the fact that the current method of measuring CO2 (360 p.p.m.v.) using modern equipment and methods that are accurate is comparable to the derived methods in the report which peak between 280 and 300. The report simply makes an observation with no supporting evidence and no proof. If you read the Vostok report it contains things like "This approach underestimates ΔTs by a factor of 2 in Greenland and, possibly, by up to 50% in Antarctica. " Ts being temperature. The graphs are mentioned as potentially being off by 15,000 years. etc. etc. There are so many assumptions that it is clear to anyone with a science background that the report is probably good it its relative measures of CO2, but there is no evidence that bias has been removed from the observations (chapter 1 of "How to Lie with Statistics").

If in fact you look at figure 3 in the Vostok report, top line in the graph you will see that the most recent ice core CO2 level is below or about equal to all four previous peaks going back 400,000+ years. The Vostok report simply does not attempt to correlate the differences in CO2 readings (current using one method of measurement to past using a completely different measurement method). Why? Because there is no reference to what the real CO2 levels were several hundred thousand years ago, nor is there any scientific theory that explains how to make this comparison.

I'm not going to argue an individual study with you. That's nothing but a distraction.

4. Now why would NASA continue to propagate bad science? It could be any of the following:

• the person that did the web site was probably not a scientist, probably did not have a good high school education, does not understand statistics, or did not understand point 3 above.
• NASA funding comes from the Administration. The Administration's political agenda includes duping the American people about Climate Change and the Administration is not going to fully fund an Agency that is not on the political band wagon.
• If people are focused on the fake problems of Climate Change then they are not focused on the loss of liberty, raises in taxes, losses of jobs, losses of privacy, deterioration of the middle class, increases in health care costs, etc. that have been forced on us by our recent political leaders (Democrat and Republican).
• Or it could be the same greed that effects universities, the need for justifying funding that is so important that it does not deserve a critical evaluation, given that people are so easy to dupe.

If you are going for conspiracy theories, wouldn't it make more sense that the vast resources of Big Oil is spreading FUD to delay the movement away from fossil fuels? Especially considering that the idea of climate change being a U.S. political con job is contradicted by the fact that we have an international scientific consensus.

 

[nt5672]

I'm not going to argue an individual study with you. That's nothing but a distraction.

It was the first graph on the first page of the most important reference you decided to put forward and it was current. The graph is a lie based on the references cited. Why? If there is all of this all important conclusive data, why lie about it? Why would NASA lie about it?

Pick another one of the studies on the new page that you referenced and I'll look that one up. But guess what, the study backing the new reference probably won't draw the conclusions your new reference put forward either. In all cases, I suggested that you actually read the original research, rather than believe a headline that was created by someone with something to gain.

I know, I know, I know, the details don't matter, this subject is too important to worry about a few details and the profit motives of a few promoters. The government would never lie to us, they are here to protect us. Just like ObamaCare, just like WMDs, just like Bengazi, etc., etc. etc.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Nor does it prove it. A couple of things are going on here. Let me make it simple.

1. Please look up and read "How to Lie with Statistics", by Darrell Huff, published in 1954 and used extensively in college courses until lying became required to get funding sometime in the 70's. The text is available on the internet.

I suggest that you refrain from making statements like this if you want anyone to take you seriously.

2. Did you actually read the reference paper "Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record." Guess what, the graph shown on the NASA web site does not appear in the paper. Nope, no place, nada. This is called in "How to Lie with Statistics", the semi-attached figure. If you can't prove what you want to prove, then pretend they are the same thing.
:
comparable to the derived methods in the report which peak between 280 and 300. The report simply makes an observation with no supporting evidence and no proof. If you read the Vostok report it contains things like "This approach underestimates ΔTs by a factor of 2 in Greenland and, possibly, by up to 50% in Antarctica. " Ts being temperature. The graphs are mentioned as potentially being off by 15,000 years. etc. etc. There are so many assumptions that it is clear to anyone with a science background that the report is probably good it its relative measures of CO2, but there is no evidence that bias has been removed from the observations (chapter 1 of "How to Lie with Statistics").

Here is a recent look at the same data. Don't be confused by the time scale going in the reverse direction.

http://epic.awi.de/37168/1/fischer2015pages.pdf

You may find it particularly interesting to read the section "The enigma of glacial/interglacial CO2 changes".

4. Now why would NASA continue to propagate bad science? It could be any of the following:

• the person that did the web site was probably not a scientist, probably did not have a good high school education, does not understand statistics, or did not understand point 3 above.
• NASA funding comes from the Administration. The Administration's political agenda includes duping the American people about Climate Change and the Administration is not going to fully fund an Agency that is not on the political band wagon.
• If people are focused on the fake problems of Climate Change then they are not focused on the loss of liberty, raises in taxes, losses of jobs, losses of privacy, deterioration of the middle class, increases in health care costs, etc. that have been forced on us by our recent political leaders (Democrat and Republican).
• Or it could be the same greed that effects universities, the need for justifying funding that is so important that it does not deserve a critical evaluation, given that people are so easy to dupe.

You are mixing up a bunch of things, of course. The web site is, as you observe, not a scientific paper itself. It does, however, give you enough pointers to go do a bunch of of Google Scholar searches. One of the lessons of the "climategate that never happened" is that it can be quite difficult for scientists to talk to the general public.

Of course, if you believe that all the scientists in the world are joined in a vast conspiracy to defraud you of tax dollars, then, you probably won't believe all the papers you read anyway. But, Science sure is a difficult way to defraud the public. The NASA, NOAA, NSF, and NIH budgets put together, per year, did not add up to just the incremental cost of funding just the Iraq war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States